Sorry for the belated responses. Based on Dar's latest comment ["...the issue of global warming and air quality. That noise that you just heard was Mike N gasping that I would actually care about such a thing, but I do."], I see I probably should have responded to these two posts before. Today's remarks are indented (>>> <<<).
Re: [Bikies] Leadship on what? On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:19:47 -0800, Peter Brinson said: Sometimes the best leadership is the leadership that you don't see. I suspect that the reason that BFW doesn't take visible, aggressive stands on environmental issues are twofold: 1) BFW requires dollars to do the work it does, and they need to be sure that dollars keep flowing, no matter whether Dems or Reps are in charge. 2) Those dollars do more to protect the environment than any words or public statements it could take. >>> I call that kind of result being bought off, not leadership. If they have to sacrifice being aggressive for protection of our health and our environment, those projects are simply not worth it. Preserving a safe and sustainable environment must ALWAYS come first. The Bike Fed should be just as interested in that as they are in seeing more bicycle paths built in the state. As I said before they need to remember that their members are FULLY EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS when they are riding. They (the BFW Board) need to act on the premise that it is the members who make up their organization, it is not the agencies and funding sources who foot the bill for their projects who make up the BFW organization. <<< As a relatively recent transplant to Madison, I have been absolutely blown away by what cycling is like in Wisconsin compared to the rest of the country. It's like paradise here compared to everywhere else I've lived. I'm not saying there are no problems; there clearly are. And I'm not saying that we couldn't do more for the environment. But what I am saying is that all those bike paths and bike lanes out there- -not to mention safety programs and visibility programs--that BFW is responsible for help encourage lots of individuals to make private decisions every day to go to work without spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. No, those people's decisions don't make headlines, but assembling a bicycle infrastructure like what we have here is what you have to do if you're really serious about global warming. >>> We have to work on both -- not sacrificing one for the other.<<< [snipped] Re: [Bikies] Leadship on what? On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Michael D. Barrett said: Mike, No doubt, Dar was not able to push as hard as you would like for her to. I'll second that. But the point is not Dar. It is the board. She was in a precarious situation, caught between a board that isn't paying attention and her knowledge of how bicycle funding was going to hell. Yet, despite a board that is partial to driving to their rides, she pushed hard against WisDOT and their puppetmasters at the Wisconsin Roadbuilders. As hard as she could. So hard that the WisDOT Gauleitern complained to the board. She was fired. It is no longer a conspiracy theory. I had it confirmed by a board member who was at this weekend's BFW board retreat. I've also had it confirmed by someone else close to the situation (not Dar). Fired for behavior that would have been rewarded with a big bonus back in the days when I was on that board. <<< Then we need to rise up and demonstrate our support for her. She was brave enough to speak her mind on a concerns that we share so we need to lend her a hand. We should be demanding that reverse their decision or they will lose our support in everything they do from hereon out, members and nonmembers alike.>>> You, of all people, should be sympathetic to someone getting professionally squashed for pushing the envelope! <<< Very true. I also know how it feels when those you know don't step in and call foul and at least make an attempt to remedy the situation. It's demoralizing. But it happens all the time. Most people are cowards when it comes to sticking their neck out for someone else other than themselves or those who are in their immediate family. I'm not saying that you're like that though, nor that you aren't. >>> >>> Yup, BFW needs to do all the things you list. But now it is sliding to an even worse place--trade organization status. That is the point. Not Dar. Her firing is just a symptom. Dar was never the enemy you should have been gunning for.<<< I'm glad to hear that. Like I said before, I just didn't know one way or another. But now I do, and therefore I am willing to do my share to help. <<< The board is. I *strongly* encourage you to run for that board. They are the ones that make the bad decisions you cite, not staff. >>> We need to do other things first. Suggestions anyone? <<< In 1995 that board was in about the same state it is now (minus the cash). A few of us worked to turn it back into an advocacy organization (and built up the resources). By 2000 we pretty much had it there, so I felt safe stepping down. Now it has backslid and it needs some serious advocates to run for that board to bring it back. Time to step up, folks! -Mike P.s. Thanks, George, for recently stating your intention to do just that! _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
